Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 211 total)

• RE: Defining keys as sets that must not intersect instead of scalar values that must not be equal

Lynn Pettis - Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:50 PM

Actually, it looks like you are the one that always thinks they are...

• RE: Defining keys as sets that must not intersect instead of scalar values that must not be equal

Lynn Pettis - Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:36 AM

Well, that doesn't give you the right to call someone an inappropriate...

• RE: Defining keys as sets that must not intersect instead of scalar values that must not be equal

patrickmcginnis59 10839 - Wednesday, January 17, 2018 7:03 AM

How could we go about finding what properties or circumstances arise...

• RE: Defining keys as sets that must not intersect instead of scalar values that must not be equal

Lynn, that's marvellous. You have once again utterly ignored the logic of the presented arguments on either side, and have decided that the relevant comment to make is to come...

• RE: Defining keys as sets that must not intersect instead of scalar values that must not be equal

patrickmcginnis59 10839 - Tuesday, January 16, 2018 8:31 AM

Like:
day shift, 8 am to 5 pm
swing shift, 12 noon to 9 pm
and those...

• RE: Defining keys as sets that must not intersect instead of scalar values that must not be equal

TomThomson - Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:06 PM

One good thing about looking at complete equality instead of intersection is that if...

• RE: Defining keys as sets that must not intersect instead of scalar values that must not be equal

patrickmcginnis59 10839 - Monday, January 15, 2018 7:17 AM

I don't like the idea. It disallows using columns in keys to specify overlapping...

• RE: Defining keys as sets that must not intersect instead of scalar values that must not be equal

Lynn Pettis - Friday, December 22, 2017 5:55 PM

You know, I can't get you to understand that you are...

• RE: Defining keys as sets that must not intersect instead of scalar values that must not be equal

You claim I didn't care whether he understood, but I spent 20 paragraphs working through various different explanations trying to provide that understanding. Does that not seem rather contradictory to...

• RE: Defining keys as sets that must not intersect instead of scalar values that must not be equal

It seems as though SSC decided that my reply should overwrite my previous comment, so now it appears as though I have somehow gone back in time. Fortunately you quoted...

• RE: Defining keys as sets that must not intersect instead of scalar values that must not be equal

How I can be creating a straw man of my own position? I don't consider it "hard headed" to give up in this case, Tom has made it clear...
• RE: Defining keys as sets that must not intersect instead of scalar values that must not be equal

Lynn Pettis - Thursday, December 21, 2017 11:02 AM

I have been reading this with interest, but unfortunately you shot yourself in...

• RE: Defining keys as sets that must not intersect instead of scalar values that must not be equal

You're right, in the areas case I would need an additional column to specify order if the vertices themselves have no order component. Of course a vertex would...
• RE: Defining keys as sets that must not intersect instead of scalar values that must not be equal

I have been trying to think of a different example which might clarify the confusion, and I think I have one. The confusion in the "employment agreement" example seems to...

• RE: Defining keys as sets that must not intersect instead of scalar values that must not be equal

"because you appear to say that there's no such thing as a Person"*

You're mistaking the employment agreement for the person. The key for the person, whatever that might...

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 211 total)